Standing Committee D

[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]

Water Bill [Lords]

Clauses 75 to 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80 - Flood plans: large raised reservoirs

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Bill Wiggin: Good morning, Mr. O'Hara, and welcome to the Chair.
 The Bill deals with the shortage of water, yet only when we get to this point do we start to deal with the problem of reservoirs. The clause puts in place proper plans so that if a raised reservoir should burst there is a procedure to ensure that the local community suffers no danger or loss of life. That is welcome. However, there are no powers that would enable more reservoirs to be built. 
 The problem with British water is that although it falls out of the sky regularly, we save no more than 3 per cent. of our rainfall. That is an extraordinarily low amount and it is why water is such a precious resource. It has not rained for some time this month and we have had one of the driest autumns; what better illustration can I draw as to why we should save more water in reservoirs? It is a great shame that the Bill contains nothing that would make it easier, particularly for areas such as Thames gateway where a lot of new housing will be built, to save rainfall.

Elliot Morley: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Hara.
 The clause deals with flood plans, which are basically contingency planning for reservoir management in the case of a major incident. I do not think that anyone would have any concerns about that. Procedures for the provision of new reservoirs are not in the Bill because they are dealt with in planning legislation. There are powers for companies to produce water resource plans for the next 25 years; that is an existing responsibility. Water companies may, as part of good resource planning, identify future needs for reservoirs. Proposals for reservoirs have to go through the normal planning procedures. 
 As the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, the building of reservoirs can be very capital intensive. It is therefore likely that companies will have to make a bid to the regulator in the five-year financial planning process to get the necessary capital provision. 
 Before we start looking at reservoir building it is important to maximise water efficiency. That includes reducing leakage and advocating a more efficient use of water. That can mitigate or postpone the need for reservoir building for some years. Those provisions are 
 not spelled out in the Bill because they exist in both resource planning and standard planning procedures.

Bill Wiggin: I still think it a pity that those provisions are not included. I accept that planning is not part of the Bill, but the Government have managed to include a medical aspect, so it would not have been beyond their wit or imagination to include a planning aspect, and it is a great shame that they have not.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 81 - National security

Amendment made: No. 261, in 
clause 81, page 96, line 40, leave out 'in pursuance of' and insert 'pursuant to'.—[Mr. Morley.]
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Norman Baker: I want to speak briefly about flood plans and national security, because the clause gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State in the interests of national security. In principle, nobody would query the conclusion that there may be instances in which information should be withheld from classes of people. However, the clause allows for zero consultation on and zero publication of flood plans if that is the Secretary of State's decision. Will the Minister explain what
''person or class of persons'',
 referred to in the paragraphs mentioned in new section 12B(1), might not be consulted? 
 It is standard practice, for example, for the Environment Agency to be given privileged information that may have national security implications, and for that to be treated securely with everyone's confidence, so I would not like such information to be excluded. We are discussing designated classes who are statutory consultees, yet the Secretary of State is giving himself or herself the power not to consult them or to produce information in public notices for those classes of people. Who are those classes, and in what circumstances would information not be provided?

Elliot Morley: There is no intention not to consult people, particularly those in the area who may be affected. However, situations may arise in which there is a need to restrict that consultation, although we would still consult with the undertaker, which would be the Environment Agency, as the hon. Gentleman recognised. There would also be consultation with the local authority, to which the flood plans would be important, as it is responsible for an emergency response.
 The new sections are a consequence of clauses 80 and 83, which provide directions for undertakers to prepare the flood plans and extend the requirements of the Reservoirs Act 1975 to the Crown. Normally we want to consult, but, if at the time, there is considered to be a risk to national security, the clause will enable 
 the Secretary of State to limit consultation. The Secretary of State may also serve a notice on an undertaker requiring them not to publish a flood plan and to withhold access to it. That is because software predictions can, with some accuracy, show the course of flood water from a dam failure and the infrastructure that would be at risk from that.

Norman Baker: I understand the Minister's point and do not disagree with him in principle. I want to clarify that he is saying that a local authority would always be consulted, although matters would have to be treated confidentially. That is a useful guarantee for democratic accountability. Will he say which classes of persons might not be consulted?

Elliot Morley: I confirm that local authorities would be consulted. Normally, we would expect a flood plan to be published and open to public scrutiny by anybody who wanted to see it. If a particular dam, or the possible effects of a flooding event on downstream infrastructure, were thought to be sensitive, the restriction might apply to the general public and to anyone who wanted to wander in and look at the details and the software. I think that that is what is meant.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 81, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83 - Crown application

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Norman Baker: My point is similar to the one that I just made. In new section 27A(4), the Secretary of State reserves the right to limit the power of entry exercisable in relation to what is specified in the certificate, and I entirely understand why that might be desirable. What procedure will be followed when entry for environmental reasons would normally be deemed to be desirable but is prohibited for security reasons? What about the problem that would have necessitated entry in the first place?

Elliot Morley: I am a little quizzical about that point because the clause deals with the exemption of Crown bodies. Its intention is to bring them into the scope of the Reservoirs Act 1975 and to render them formally subject to the Act's safety regime, so the powers of entry are extended to them. That is the simple explanation.

Norman Baker: I understand that, but it appears that an exclusion is given—[Interruption.] There is a lot of talking; I hope you can hear me, Mr. O'Hara. New subsection (4), which gives the general power to bring Crown premises into the scope of the Act, is welcome, but an exclusion is given for security reasons. That is how I understand the proposal, although I may have misread it.
 In the minority of cases where it is deemed inappropriate for entry to be given, what will happen when the need for entry is otherwise identified? What procedure will be followed to deal with the problem that would have necessitated entry in the first place? I hope that the Minister can clarify the matter.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right. New subsection (4) deals with national security. A site may fall within the powers of the Act, but for reasons of national security the Secretary of State can declare that the powers of entry do not apply. Because these are Crown estates and Crown bodies, in circumstances where there is a matter of security the site is likely, though not certain, to be a Ministry of Defence property. If there were a need for access to carry out duties under the Bill, it would be a matter for negotiation between the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State at the Department concerned.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 85 - Water conservation by public authorities

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 211, in
clause 85, page 98, line 22, leave out subsection (1) and insert— 
 '(1) It is the duty of each public authority, in carrying out his or its functions, to have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of furthering the conservation of water.'.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 231, in 
clause 85, page 98, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert 
 'have a duty to promote water conservation'.
 Amendment No. 166, in 
clause 85, page 98, line 23, leave out from beginning to 'water' and insert 'further the conservation of'.
 Amendment No. 289, in 
clause 85, page 98, line 23, leave out from beginning to 'water' and insert 
 'have a duty to further the conservation of'.

Bill Wiggin: The position of the clause is useful because we dealt with the bulk of the argument at the beginning of the Bill. We revisit it now, and it is helpful to have read Government new clause 16, which would amend the Bill to take into consideration the views expressed in another place.
 This is an important part of the Bill because it is incumbent on everyone in authority, not just members of the Committee, to conserve water. New clause 16 provides for that, but does not go into the same detail or place the same emphasis on duty as amendment No. 211, which will be popular with hon. Members, as similar amendments have been tabled by Members on both sides of the Committee. 
 It is extremely important that we get this part of the Bill right. When speaking to clause 80, the Minister was keen to emphasise that there must be 
 improvements in terms of leakage and water efficiency. In that way, we could avoid the need to build new reservoirs—with all the costs and awkwardness involved—for as long as possible. We are trying again to tackle the same problem, but this time I seek to tighten up the wording so that we put a duty on each public authority. 
 The alternatives are the named authorities such as the Welsh Assembly or the various authorities named throughout the Bill. The difference is that the duty would apply not just to the authority, but to its members, who would have to further water conservation so far as they could while carrying out their functions and where it was consistent with the exercise of those functions. 
 The structure of the amendment is different from the Bill, although at first glance they appear similar, because the amendment implies that it is the duty of everybody to conserve water in the way in which they carry out their job. It is a useful amendment and, although I accept that the Government have captured the spirit of it in their new clause, it would do no harm to add this wording. It would shift the emphasis enough to satisfy those of us who want proper conservation to take place at every opportunity, and it would facilitate that process.

Robert Key: My hon. Friend's clear explanation of the reason for his amendment is reinforced by amendment No. 166 in my name.
 It would be very difficult for us to justify not placing a duty on the Secretary of State—that is the point—but we need to be tougher about that. The time has come when this country must take the issue seriously; either we are serious about it or we are not. For once, rather than listening to the cautions of officials and lawyers, we should have the courage of our convictions to say that water conservation shall be a duty—as simple as that—not ''if and when it might, possibly, one day be desirable, if the sun is shining on alternate Thursdays'', which seems to be the attitude with which we are saddled. I strongly support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend, and I hope that the Committee will also support amendment No. 166.

Candy Atherton: I speak to amendment No. 231 in my name. As hon. Members will see from the number of amendments to the clause, there is a desire to push the Government on the level of responsibility that public authorities should have in promoting better management of water. I take pride in saying that mine is the shortest amendment and less of a mouthful than that tabled by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin).
 Amendment No. 231 goes a little further than the duty to further water conservation by making it a 
''duty to promote water conservation''.
 I do not need to tell the Committee that the need is there. The amendment would put an onus on public authorities to promote water conservation. I will not rehearse all the arguments that we have been through, but I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the amendment.

Norman Baker: As we have just heard, there is a good deal of cross-party consensus on the need to deal with the matter in a more robust way than is suggested in the Bill. Two amendments have been tabled by Conservative Members, one by a Liberal Democrat and one by a Labour Back Bencher. All point in the same direction; they stem from a belief that the Bill's wording is inadequate and suggest that the Minister should strengthen it. I hope that that gives him pause for thought.
 There is a rather unfortunate phrase in line 23 of the clause: ''where relevant''. What does that mean?

Robert Key: Not much.

Norman Baker: It means that somebody can say, ''Well, water conservation is not very relevant here, so I shall ignore it.'' In other words, it completely destroys the purpose of the provision. It should always be desirable to conserve water supplied to premises. It may not always be possible and there may be other demands that occasionally act against it for some reason that we cannot specify, but it is always desirable, so why does the phrase ''where relevant'' qualify that?
 As has been implied, those seem to be weasel words, producing a clause that is motherhood and apple pie without apples or mothers anywhere being near it. The Minister has admitted to this sort of thing. He should consider the words carefully and make a bold statement, instead of coming up with phrases that can be disowned. In five years, someone could say, ''Well, water conservation wasn't relevant'', or we could have a meaningless discussion in Committee or on the Floor of the House about why no action was taken because someone had decided that it was not relevant. I do not want to have that discussion in five years, so I ask the Minister to act now.

Elliot Morley: There is no disagreement about the principle of the proposal relating to the duty to promote the wider consideration of water conservation throughout the public sector. However, I remind the Committee that new clause 16 imposes a duty on central Government to encourage water conservation, so the duty is at the heart of Government. Clause 85 imposes a duty on all public authorities to take water conservation into account. It is worded as it is because there is an issue of legal interpretation and the way in which Bills must be drafted. For example, local authorities do not have the primary duty when it comes to furthering water conservation. That cuts across the water companies, for example. It is not the local authorities' primary duty, although we do not disagree that they should have a duty to consider water conservation across their sector.
 The legislation is drafted in this way because it takes into account the fact that local authorities have other duties, such as firefighting. I cannot ever imagine a local authority in court, accused of not furthering water conservation by using large quantities of water to fight fires, but those are the legal considerations that must be taken into account when drafting a Bill so that its meaning is clear. What the clause means in respect of promoting water conservation is very clear. It is 
 drafted in such a way that it meets legal demands, including those of parliamentary counsel.

Bill Wiggin: I am afraid that the Minister has failed to convince me. The idea that firefighters would be sued for emptying the village pond when putting out a fire at the local pub is a nice idea, and I am sure that his advisers are doing their best to come up with more innovative ideas as to how the proposal could go wrong, but the principle is that people in any sort of authority should turn the taps off themselves and do their best to ensure that that takes place whenever possible.
 The Minister touched on the duty in new clause 16, which, unfortunately, we are not allowed to debate now. The important point is that the duty is there, but not as we have expressed it in the amendments. Having heard the Minister's response, I am not convinced that the Bill's wording is sufficient, and clearly all the people who read the Bill and made the effort to table amendments agree. Although as usual the Minister means well, his explanation is not satisfying the Committee that the duty really is there.

Robert Key: Having spoken to my amendment, I listened carefully to the Minister, who said that the meaning of the clause was absolutely clear. Indeed it is; it is absolutely clear in its indecisiveness. In practical terms, it means nothing at all, so I shall press my amendment to a vote.

Elliot Morley: I can only repeat that the Bill adds to the duty to further water conservation in carrying out the functions of local authorities and central Government, and places a new water conservation duty on the Secretary of State. That is important. The Environment Agency, too, has a duty to secure the proper use of water resources. Those are all in the Bill and are very clear. I do not disagree with the intention behind the proposal, but I do not see how someone could argue that the clauses undermine it.

Bill Wiggin: Is it not already incumbent on the Secretary of State to conserve water? Why does the Secretary of State need to be given this particular power in this way?

Elliot Morley: It recognises the strength of feeling expressed in the other place and in this Committee that water is an important resource and that we should take steps to conserve it across the public sector, and in the way in which the agency and the water undertakers carry out their duties. That duty is clearly written into the Bill. One might argue about the ifs, buts and maybes, but we are back to the issue of balance. That duty is not the primary function of local authorities, but we recognise that they have a role to play. That role, with regard to the balance of their duties, is reflected in the clause in a rational, responsible and legal way.

Candy Atherton: I sought to explore the views of the Government and the Minister, and I am satisfied that the duty to promote is in the Bill.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 14.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 166, in 
clause 85, page 98, line 23, leave out from beginning to 'water' and insert 'further the conservation of'.—[Mr. Key.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 14.

Question accordingly negatived.

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 290, in
clause 85, page 98, line 40, at end insert— 
 '(3) To assist public authorities in the pursuance of the duty specified in subsection (1) a Water Savings Trust will be established which shall have duties to— 
 (a) achieve the sustainable and efficient use of water; and 
 (b) work with public authorities, water undertakers, water supply licence holders, and abstraction licence holders in pursuance of the duty in paragraph (a) above.'.
 Several amendments in the last group sought to include in the Bill a duty to promote the conservation of water. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) sought to include a duty to promote water conservation. I can help her out with this amendment, which aims to promote water conservation by establishing a water savings trust. 
 As Members know, we have had a good summer as we have not had many hosepipe bans or other restrictions. That is partly due to good management and partly to the heavy rainfall last winter, which replenished reservoirs and ground waters. However, we will not always be so lucky, and we need to take measures to avoid future droughts and water shortages. The Government have recognised that, 
 but they have included only half-hearted measures on conservation in the Bill. 
 Conservation needs to be taken more seriously throughout society, in particular by the general public. Evidence from surveys and water company research suggests that water customers are increasingly less likely to follow water company requests to curtail their usage during drought periods. A recent technical report by the Environment Agency on Thames Water, on the effectiveness of marketing campaigns for achieving water efficiency savings, highlighted a difficulty of changing customer behaviour when water resources are not considered an environmental priority and are of little public recognition. The establishment of a water savings trust could provide the public marketing, profile raising, impartial guidance and advice needed to drive us towards a water-efficient future. 
 The Liberal Democrats have been in discussions with several water companies about water conservation. One company said: 
''We have a very high profile programme of customer education representing best practice in the industry. However, it would be better if, rather like energy, all companies contributed their water efficiency budgets into a central fund so there was a National initiative, rather like the Energy Efficiency Office. This would enable a central means of giving advice, perhaps grants to replace cisterns with low or dual flush units with a National and co-ordinated campaign.''
 There is pressure not only from the Liberal Democrats, but from the water industry to examine water conservation more holistically and in a more joined-up fashion. Why should one part of the country have a water company that is switched on and has measures in place while in other parts the water company is less forward-looking and no such measures are available to customers? That cannot be right. It is up to the Government to give a lead, and the Committee can today push them in that direction. 
 The amendment would establish a water savings trust. Further guidance would be needed to establish its aims, duties and funding, so we are debating the principle rather than the nitty-gritty of its operation. I would suggest that its aims and priorities should follow the model of the Energy Saving Trust, which I mentioned earlier. That was established after Rio in 1992. A water savings trust's goals could be to achieve sustainable and efficient use of water, work with a range of partners and deliver practical solutions to households, small firms and the agricultural sector. Such a trust could undertake regular high-profile marketing campaigns to raise the profile of water resources and the need for the public and public bodies to adopt water efficient measures, techniques and technologies. That work is not being done sufficiently at the moment. 
 We are not talking simply about conservation. If we encourage businesses to save water, we will find that they save huge amounts of money and become more productive and profitable as a consequence. When I was chair of economic development on the county council in my area some years ago, we started a pilot scheme in which businesses were given free advice on environmental practice. We found that those businesses saved lots of money through simple 
 techniques such as turning the toilets off over the weekend. They saved between £20,000 and £40,000 a year through a combination of simple measures. 
 We are not talking simply about the energy and water sectors helping the environment; such moves will also make businesses more profitable and save consumers money. If such a trust were introduced with the objectives that I set out, it would be a win-win situation. It could also provide water efficiency information for local authority partners, developers and the public in a co-ordinated way throughout the country. 
 Water efficiency, and the promotion of water efficiency, will benefit everybody. Nobody would lose by such a trust being set up; everyone would gain. It could be funded by a small levy on extraction licence-holders, or the water companies could simply pool their budgets, as I suggested in my earlier example. In either case, in the grand scheme of things, it would not cost a great deal of money. 
 The cost of the energy savings trust in 2002–03 was £90.7 million. That trust does a great deal of work, as those who are familiar with it will recognise. However, such a sum of money, or even less, could perform equally well for water savings. 
 On 16 September, the Minister questioned whether a water savings trust would achieve very much. I hope that I have demonstrated that it would, and that a trust with the aims and duties that I outlined would achieve more than the ineffective, piecemeal, multi-body approach that currently represents what we call water-efficiency measures.

Bill Wiggin: It is difficult for me to say anything nice about the Liberal Democrats, in case it appears in a ''Focus'' leaflet in my constituency. However, in these circumstances, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The amendment is constructive. My only issue with it is that it is perhaps a little compulsory; there is no opportunity for a water savings trust that is successful to stop. However, apart from that small criticism, it is a useful amendment.
 The amendment touches on the need for better education and for a parallel to the energy savings trust, which has achieved a great deal. The Minister has already spoken this morning about leaks and waste; he obviously believes that more can be done to save water, despite the fact that Government Members voted against those helpful amendments in the last group. 
 We should also consider that if the Bill received Royal Assent, the possibility of fluoride leaking into the soil and contaminating it would be a real worry. If we can cut the levels of any of the various types of waste that is produced, a water savings trust would have a second, environmentally supportive role. 
 I shall not speak for much longer. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) covered almost every point in his long speech. However, I reiterate that the amendment is constructive, and we will support it.

Elliot Morley: As I said before, I have an open mind to those sorts of approaches. The hon. Member for Lewes said that he was discussing the principle and not the detail. I am sure that he would not want to be accused of making worthy suggestions that sound good without any idea of how they would be implemented, their cost or who would pay for or implement them. It would be very unworthy of me to make such an accusation, and I would not wish to do so—[Interruption.] However, the principle is serious; there may be a case for a water savings trust, but that case must be examined. We will have to work out the costs, the benefits and the effectiveness or otherwise of such a trust.
 We have discussed a range of new duties and measures to promote water conservation at every level of government; in local government, in central Government and the agencies, and in the Environment Agency. We are already doing many of the things outlined by the hon. Gentleman as being the role of the water savings trust. For example, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry jointly provide funding for Envirowise to promote awareness of water efficiency and other environmental issues. 
 Similarly, Ofwat already has a duty to ensure that all water companies take seriously their statutory duty to promote the efficient use of water. Ofwat reports annually on companies' performance, so there is an evaluation of what water companies do, along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Lewes. If a water company is not pulling its weight, Ofwat has the responsibility and the powers to get it to pull its socks up.

Bill Wiggin: Is that not the same as with energy companies? Does not Ofgem also have a duty to conserve energy?

Elliot Morley: That is absolutely right, although there are differences with regard to energy. For example, it is a lot easier to retrofit loft insulation or draught excluders than it is to retrofit certain water-saving devices.
 I return to the fact that I do not want to say ''never'' to the idea of a water savings trust; there may be an argument for it in the future. However, the battery of new measures in the Bill show how seriously we take water resource management, and there are new duties and responsibilities. Ofwat and the Secretary of State have new powers, and the Environment Agency, for example, can stipulate on abstraction licences that water must be used efficiently and take action if that is not the case.

Paddy Tipping: Is it not the case that Ofwat, as the regulator, can bring about real changes? By looking at the performance of water companies on leakages, Ofwat has made real progress, but we must continue to work on Thames Water, which has the worst leakage rate in the country. Ofwat's naming and shaming strategy, rather than a trust, will bring changes.

Elliot Morley: Water leakage is one of the top priorities for the efficient use of water. The measures taken by Ofwat have brought about a 30 per cent.
 reduction in water leakage in the UK, which is probably equivalent to the total daily water consumption of London. That is significant and, as my hon. Friend rightly said, as a result of Ofwat's actions, we know the performance of different water companies on water leakage. Poor performers are open to pressure from Ofwat and have a responsibility to adhere to the demands set by Ofwat on the reduction of leakage.
 I do not want to be dogmatic, but I suggest that we need to give the Bill a chance to operate, see how the duties work in practice and see what difference it makes. If we still feel that there is a role for a water savings trust, it can be introduced later. I think that the hon. Member for Lewes accepts, as shown in his opening remarks, that work on justifying the trust—what it would cost, what it would do and its cost-benefit analysis—needs to be done. The idea has been around for a while, but it has not been advocated in the necessary detail for us to discuss it seriously. 
 My answer to him is that the trust is a possibility, but that we should give the Bill a chance and see how its measures work. If it is felt that there is still a role for an organisation such as a water savings trust, we can consider it in the future.

Norman Baker: As a matter of fact, the amendment does not specify a date for a water savings trust to be introduced. It is possible for the Minister to incorporate the amendment into the Bill and introduce the trust at a later date, once he has analysed how the Bill is working. My amendment is consistent with the Minister's line; on that basis, he should support it.
 It is slightly disingenuous for the Minister, as he has done more than once in Committee, to accuse Opposition amendments of having no detail when we are raising points of principle. Then, when detail is provided, he picks away at unimportant parts of the amendment, saying, ''This doesn't work; that doesn't work'', and trying to rubbish the amendment on that basis. We see through the Minister's technique. He should address the principle, although to be fair to him, he did in some of his comments. However, I ask him not to go down that line, because it is slightly disingenuous and not entirely fair, although it is par for the course for Ministers of whatever party to adopt that approach when an amendment is difficult to resist. 
 I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leominster for his support, and promise that he will not appear in a ''Focus'' leaflet, so long as I do not appear in ''In Touch''; that is a mutual promise. The Minister discussed the steps being taken, but failed to explain why what is good for energy is bad for water. None of that came through in his answers, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, which was absolutely spot-on. The Minister spoke about measures here, there and everywhere—a piecemeal approach—and about the fact that Ofwat is dealing with the water companies. It is doing that to some extent, but that is not the whole story. The amendment refers to 
''public authorities, water undertakers, water supply licence holders,''
 and ''abstraction licence holders''. We need to take into account more than just the water companies; of course they are important, but they are not the be-all and end-all. 
 In this debate, and in the discussion on the last group of amendments, the Minister has resisted many opportunities to bolster water conservation and efficiency and relied on mealy-mouthed words that could mean one thing or another. He has asked the Committee to accept that all is hunky-dory in the garden when it is not. 
 The Minister glided over my quotes from the water company, which is not alone in its view. Water companies are strongly in favour of a water savings trust and I do not know why the Minister does not talk to them more frequently. He ignored their views in his response.

Jim Knight: If the water companies want to set up a trust, why do they not get on and do it? Why do we need to leave an open-ended commitment in the Bill in favour of forming such a trust, which is a presumption in favour of regulation and red tape? Is not it best to remove that presumption? If it becomes necessary in the future to force the water companies to form such a trust, we can do it.

Norman Baker: If the proposal were incorporated in the Bill without having an introductory time limit, there would be extra pressure on water companies to come up with a voluntary scheme, which would reduce bureaucracy and obviate the need for such a proposal in due course. What the hon. Gentleman said does not hold true.
 Although a number of water companies approach the matter in a sensible manner and understand the need for a joined-up, formulated approach throughout the industry, sadly, some water companies do not. I do not see why one area should benefit from water efficiency and conservation measures and another should not. My amendment would get round that; it is a jolly good amendment, if I may say so, modestly, and I shall press it to a Division.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister's argument was well below his usual best. We accept that the purpose of the Bill is to bring in a large number of new duties, but it is nonsense to bring in something as contentious as fluoride, yet not properly debate a water savings trust. The Government set the timetable for the Bill, so the argument that a water savings trust needs its own time for debate is complete nonsense.
 The Committee's purpose is to improve the Bill. This is a clear example of the Government having missed an opportunity.

George Osborne: Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative members of the Committee are happy for the Committee sittings to be extended to provide adequate time to debate the matter?

Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend is my Whip, and no one is in a better position to interfere—I am sorry; I mean to guide me—with the timetable.

Jim Knight: We have ample time to debate the principle of a trust and that is what we have been
 doing. The issue is that no detail has been given about the basis of the trust and what its aims, objectives and specification would be. That is what is missing from the debate.

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but fortunately we have a model in the Energy Saving Trust. There is a fixed way of funding water companies through the agreement that they make with Ofwat; deliberately so, because they are in a monopolistic position. The funding structure is very rigid and the water companies complain that every penny is most carefully accounted for. There is a duty on the Committee to ensure that if we want all the advantages that the Energy Saving Trust provides for the energy sector, we should promote a trust in that way in the Bill.
 I raised the matter on Second Reading. The amendment is not very detailed but it is positive and sensible, but I accept the Minister's criticisms. It is not the most perfect wording, but we have a chance to revisit the argument. I urge the Minister to take note of the Committee's wishes, give the matter the thought that he says it requires and return with a better version, with which he is satisfied, on Report.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman is mixing two issues. There is the principle of including the proposal in the Bill, which we could do, and the issue that concerns me, which is that the case for doing so has not been made. I do not know at this stage whether a water savings trust would be beneficial, or whether the costs of such a trust would be worth the benefits. I repeat that there are a range of measures in the Bill to promote water efficiency and water saving. The hon. Member for Lewes did not seem to listen to me about the role of Ofwat. Ofwat has the power to ensure that if a water company does not meet the standards of the best in promoting water efficiency, it can take steps to deal with that matter. A range of such powers is in the Bill.
 I genuinely do not know whether a water savings trust would be any better, or would give any advantages. We have not had that debate and cannot do so in Committee or by Third Reading. When the measures to promote water conservation and efficiency are implemented, it may be considered that, in relation to costs and benefits, there is a case for a water savings trust. I am not rubbishing the idea, or saying that it has no merit. However, at this stage, the case has not been made, the work has not been done, there are a lot of unknowns and, most importantly, we do not know whether it would do any good or have any benefit to the Bill's range of measures. I can take a reasonable position on that and I do not close the door to a water savings trust. It is an interesting idea; I am always interested in interesting ideas. I am always interested in others' cases for change and different ways of promoting water efficiency, but I have not heard the technical arguments for such a structure. 
 All the measures to promote water efficiency are in the Bill. Let us apply them and see how it goes; let us see the answers and conclusions to which Ofwat and consumer bodies come. In future, there may be more 
 detailed arguments about a water savings trust—what it would cost, what it would do and what advantages it might have over the Bill—and if that case is made, we must consider it. However, that case has not yet been made.

George Osborne: Is the Minister saying that he would be prepared to let his Department work on the idea and perhaps, at some future point, write to members of the Committee after considering whether it was a good idea, how it could be made to work or what would be the arguments against it?

Elliot Morley: I am prepared to give that undertaking. We have asked the Environment Agency to review what further steps could be taken to promote and secure water efficiency, and I do not think that it would be unreasonable to ask it to consider the concept of a water savings trust. I can give that serious consideration.

Norman Baker: We are in danger of talking and never meeting. The Minister puts a point, which I rebut; he makes the same point, having not heard the rebuttal. He may accuse me of doing the same thing. He does not explain the difference between energy and water and does not pick up the point that Ofwat deals only with companies, not with any other range of people in the water industry. He said that he is prepared to have some work done on the matter. If he would be prepared to do that seriously within a specific time scale, I would be prepared to sit on the issue for a while. Frankly, I hope that the Government have done some work already, given the pressure that exists for the concept. Can he say something about the detail and the time scale involved, and how he intends to report to either the Committee or the House? That would influence whether I seek to divide the Committee.

Elliot Morley: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that work is under way. We work on a range of issues. I do not object to asking the Environment Agency to consider the issue. I understand that it will take about six months for the work to be done. As with all our research and analysis, the results will be put in the public domain.

Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Minister, who has moved slightly from rubbishing the amendment to seeing the merits of a water-saving strategy.

Bill Wiggin: He has moved a long way.

Norman Baker: He has indeed. On the basis of the assurance that the Minister has given, I propose to withdraw the amendment. But in the spirit of co-operation, I ask him first to supply members of the Committee with details of the terms of Environment Agency's reference, in loose terms and, secondly, to draw our attention to the work when it is completed in six months' time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 87 - Control of water from coal mines

Candy Atherton: I beg to move amendment No. 162, in
clause 87, page 102, line 3, at end insert— 
 '4D Powers of the Authority with respect to any abandoned mine 
 All the statutory powers conferred on the Authority in respect of coal mine water discharge may at the discretion of the Authority be exercised in respect of any water discharge from any abandoned mine other than a coal mine on payment to the Authority of such fee and subject to such conditions (if any) as the Authority may consider appropriate.'.
 I represent a mining area with a heritage of mining. However, we often overlook the fact that not all mines are coal mines. As in coal mining areas, we are faced with a costly legacy as the mines fall into disuse and decay. The amendment seeks to provide the Coal Authority with a permissive power to deal with non-coal mines so that areas such as mine are not overlooked. The problem of pollution from non-coal mines can be serious. In 1992 there was a serious case of pollution at Wheal Jane in Cornwall. The Environment Agency stepped in on that occasion and has worked with the Coal Authority to tackle the problem. 
 However, there is a distinction to be made between the Agency's role as regulator and the need for remedial action. There is a need for a more concerted approach to tackle pollution from all mines. There are hundreds of small seepages from metal mines in this country that currently have no mechanism for clean-up. There are also problems identifying who is responsible for the pollution. This is where the Coal Authority can step in. It has a history of expertise and a wealth of skills at its disposal. Indeed, the authority has an impressive track record in the hitherto neglected area of environmental work. 
 Cleaning up pollution from non-coal mines is also a requirement of the water framework directive, so the amendment would help us to meet our requirements under that directive.

Norman Baker: I am listening with interest and support to the hon. Lady. Will she clarify one point? Who will pick up the tab for dealing with the problems of abandoned mines?

Candy Atherton: Where there is no dispute about the ownership of the land, the bill obviously would go to the owner of the land, the presumed polluter in the first place. I suspect that there would have to be some discussion among the various agencies, including local authorities, as to the final decision where the land is in dispute. That is partly the current position. The amendment is intended to be permissive and discretionary. However, it will give relevant authorities the means to tackle an important issue and to ensure that no areas such as mine are disadvantaged in comparison with the coalfields.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for tabling the amendment. She put it very well. I should like the Minister to explain why the Bill refers specifically to coal mines rather than mines in general.

Paddy Tipping: I am pleased to support the amendment. It gives me the opportunity to praise the
 work of the Coal Authority, particularly its chairman, John Harris and its chief executive, Ian Roxburgh. The Bill recognises that over many years, since coal privatisation in 1994, the Coal Authority has been working outside its powers.
 Clause 87 will provide a proper statutory basis, which is progress, but I want to press progress a little further. The Coal Authority has developed considerable expertise on mine water discharge; not just coal mine water discharge, but mine water discharge in general. It is perhaps now the leading authority in Europe and further afield, and it is important that we use that expertise to make the best of difficult pollution problems. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne mentioned Wheal Jane, a tin mine incident, but lots of mining incidents occur throughout the country, and the Coal Authority is often called out to deal with them. Some 40 per cent. of calls to the Coal Authority about mine water discharge turn out not to be coal-related issues. A sensible point is being made, which is that the Environment Agency should act as a regulatory body. At the moment, it is not just a regulator; it is often asked to devise schemes and put them into action. 
 As my hon. Friend said, the amendment would introduce a permissive power that allows cost recovery. The Coal Authority has the expertise, and it makes good sense to try to use it in a more proactive and thoughtful way. I should be grateful if the Minister told us about any discussions that there have been with the Coal Authority. Has he met John Harris, the authority's chairman, and what is the view of other partners? I am told that the Environment Agency supports the idea in principle, and I know that the Local Government Association does. My understanding is that the Department of Trade and Industry, which sponsors the Coal Authority, is not averse to the approach, although as always it is worried about cost. However, there is a good deal of support for the amendment.

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friends make a persuasive case for the amendment. The hon. Member for Leominster asked why the power relates to coal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said, the Coal Authority already carries out the work, and the clause will formalise the situation. The Coal Authority is vulnerable to potential liabilities in common law for pollution emanating from underground workings in its ownership. It has some responsibilities as a non-departmental public body accountable to the Department of Trade and Industry, as was stated, too. It also deals with mines where there is no ownership but a potential of mine water pollution.
 The Coal Authority has redoubled its efforts on coal mine water in the past two years, and we were keen to see it take on that work. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne mentioned the problems of tin mines, and I do not deny that they are a problem in some constituencies, but coal mines are a national problem, because of their sheer numbers and the responsibility that falls on the Coal Authority. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne was right to say that other mines cause pollution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood pointed out, it is also true that the Coal Authority has valuable expertise that may be helpful in dealing with particular problems. As it stands, the Environment Agency carries the responsibility for mine water pollution incidents from tin mines in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne. To give the agency credit, it has done a lot of work in recent years and takes the problem seriously. 
 The question is whether the Coal Authority requires a statutory change of powers in relation to other mines. Is it in a position to take on the responsibility, and can it give technical support and advice without necessarily needing statutory changes to give it an element of flexibility? Could we have closer working between the Coal Authority and the Environment Agency on mine water pollution, particularly if it involves tin mines? 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne is particularly knowledgeable on that matter and has made the case. She raises an important issue and has been active on it in relation to her constituency. I suggest that she and I have a formal meeting to explore whether there could be better co-ordination and whether there are skills and experience that we can apply to the tin mine sector and potential pollution in a way that addresses her concerns.

Candy Atherton: I am very grateful to the Minister and I accept his fair offer, but could the Coal Authority be involved in those discussions? That would enable us to move the issue forward constructively.

Elliot Morley: Yes, I am only too happy to talk to the Coal Authority about this issue. To answer my hon. Friend's earlier comments, let me say that I do not have that much of a connection with the authority, because it is accountable to the DTI, not DEFRA, but it has experience on pollution control and minewater pollution that could be useful to us, so it should be involved.

Candy Atherton: In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 5 agreed to.

Schedule 6 - Compulsory purchase under the

Amendments made: No. 267, in 
schedule 6, page 183, line 10, leave out '4B' and insert '4C'.
 No. 268, in 
schedule 6, page 183, line 18, leave out '4B' and insert '4C'.
 No. 269, in 
schedule 6, page 183, line 27, leave out '4B' and insert '4C'.
 No. 270, in 
schedule 6, page 185, line 9, leave out '4B' and insert '4C'.—[Mr. Morley.]
 Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to. 
 Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89 - Transfer of discharge consents

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 114, in
clause 89, page 103, line 33, leave out 'or 6 above'.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Clause stand part. 
 New clause 24—Discharge consents— 
'(1) Schedule 10 to the WRA is amended as follows. 
 (2) After paragraph 7(1) there is inserted— 
 ''(1A) Where any consent given under paragraph 3 or 6 above authorises a discharge— 
 (a) of any substances defined as a priority substance by Directive 2000/60/EC; or 
 (b) into any controlled waters which do not meet the definition of ''good surface water status'' set out in Directive 2000/60/EC (except where the Agency is satisfied that the relevant discharge does not contribute significantly to the failure to achieve such status) 
 the Agency shall review such consent and the conditions (if any) to which the consent is subject to at least once in every period of four years beginning with the day on which the consent takes effect or, if applicable, the day on which any previous review under this paragraph was concluded. 
 (1B) If, having carried out a review under subparagraph (1A) above, the Agency wishes to exercise its powers under paragraph 7(2) below, but is unable to do so by reason of a restriction imposed under paragraph 8 below— 
 (a) the Agency shall notify the Secretary of State within one month of the conclusion of such review of the outcome of the review and its recommendations and shall request that the Secretary of State exercise his powers under paragraph 7(4) below; and 
 (b) taking full account of the Agency's recommendations, the Secretary of State shall consider whether to exercise his powers under paragraph 7(4) below, and shall notify the Agency in writing of his decision and the reasons for it within one month from the date of receipt of the Agency's notification under subparagraph (1B)(a) above.''. 
 (3) In paragraph 7(3) after ''a review under subparagraph (1)'', there is inserted ''or (1A)''. 
 (4) In paragraph 7(4), the words '', subject to such restrictions on the exercise of the power conferred by virtue of paragraph (c) above as are imposed under paragraph 8 below,'' are omitted. 
 (5) Paragraphs 7(5) and (6) are omitted. 
 (6) In paragraph 8(1), (2), (4) and (5), the words ''or (4)(c)'' are omitted.'.

Bill Wiggin: This is not a particularly large or contentious amendment. It would leave out the words ''or 6 above''. We seek to find out whether this is a great improvement on what was in the Bill before. It is a small, tinkering addition and I just wanted a little information as to why the Minister chose to include those words.

Elliot Morley: The clause deals with the transfer of discharge consents. That is an integral part of the consenting regime, and clause 89 will put in place some minor changes that will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of transferring a discharge consent from one consent holder to another.
 The Environment Agency issues discharge consents. It may also, without prior application, issue a consent to someone who is discharging without a consent and where it is likely that the discharge will continue. Such a consent is subject to the same terms and conditions as other consents. There is no difference in the way that it is dealt with. 
 The purpose of clause 89 is to improve the procedure for transferring consents made under either circumstance, but the amendment would mean that consent holders who obtained their consents via applications to the agency would be able to transfer their consents, but those who had an equally valid consent, obtained by a different route, would not. That is not justifiable, because the consents are treated in exactly the same way and are granted for the same reasons. If the agency is content to issue a consent in those circumstances, there is no reason why consent holders should not be able to transfer their consent if the need arose. One example of that need might be if the company were sold, or put in the hands of a liquidator, because the consent is in the name of the particular company. There is no difference in relation to the company or the terms of the consent. The clause therefore tidies that up. 
 I understand the concern behind new clause 24, and that proper implementation of the water framework directive is of paramount importance, but the proposed provisions would not add a substantive benefit to the powers already available, so they are not necessary. 
 Consents are granted for a period of four years or more, but the agency already has the power to review a consent at any time. The Secretary of State has the power to direct the agency to modify or revoke a consent if that appears to be appropriate to give effect to European Community obligations, or to protect public health or relevant flora and fauna. That is not restricted by the four-year non-intervention period. 
 The new clause proposes that following a review the Environment Agency, if it is prevented from modifying a consent by the restrictions already in force, should notify the Secretary of State and request her to exercise her powers of direction to determine whether the consent should be modified. However, that is already taken care of under the existing powers. The provisions take account of the intention of the new clause, as I hope that I have explained.

Sue Doughty: New clause 24 does rather more than the Minister understands. We return to the problem that the Bill sometimes recognises the water framework directive and sometimes does not. We bump along and then we diverge, and this is another example.
 Although the Bill gives us a much more sustainable approach to water resource management, on this occasion it misses a trick with the water framework directive. The directive focuses on water quality, as does the clause. The Government propose to incorporate the water framework directive into law through secondary legislation. That means that, potentially, the approach to the directive could be poorly planned and last minute, as has happened so 
 often with European directives that affect the environment. The clause gives us the opportunity for pre-planning rather than just for wondering what on earth to do about it. 
 The Environmental Industries Commission, which has more than 240 member companies, and is the largest association for the environmental technologies and services industry in Europe, is particularly worried about that issue. It also needs to plan, because there is a lot of work to do. 
 The Bill should address the major challenge presented by the legal obligation under the directive for all rivers to achieve good surface water status by 2015. Some 28 per cent. of our rivers are currently defined as being of only fair quality or worse. The majority of them will need upgrading. Even those that are defined as good might need upgrading to meet the water framework directive definition. The task is significant and will need a planned approach. We must consider the consents held by industry to discharge trade effluent into rivers and ensure that they are reviewed and tightened wherever they contribute to rivers not achieving a good status. 
 Licences for industry to discharge trade effluent into rivers are currently reviewed by the Environment Agency on average less than once every 10 years. That can drop to less than once every 30 years in some regions. Furthermore, there is a legal four-year non-intervention period when the Agency cannot change the consent to discharge without the approval of the Secretary of State. That is not a good basis on which to move forward when we implement the water framework directive. 
 The amendment requires the Agency every four years to review licences to discharge trade effluent into rivers where those rivers are failing to achieve good status, where the discharge is contributing to that failure, or where the rivers contain particularly serious pollutants. It creates a procedure for the Agency to report to the Secretary of State when it considers that a licence for industry to discharge trade effluent to rivers should be changed earlier than the usual four-year non-intervention period. 
 In the Lords, Lord Haskel tabled a similar amendment that would have enabled the Agency to review trade effluent consents earlier than every four years without the involvement of the Secretary of State. The Government rejected that because they wanted to give business certainty in planning investment. 
 The amendment must be agreed to so that there is a procedure whereby the agency can report to the Secretary of State when consent should be changed. It requires the Secretary of State to respond within one month and it ensures that cases of trade effluent discharge not meeting the standards required by the water framework directive are tackled more urgently than every four years. To ensure that such measures are not taken unnecessarily, however, the procedure retains the involvement of the Secretary of State. 
 A recent report by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on the water framework directive concluded that 
''Government does not seem to be seized of the urgency of the task . . . our most urgent plea is that the Government adopt a more positive, and more active, approach to the Directive.''
 The amendment seeks to avoid the last-minute approach that is so beloved of the Government when considering environment directives. We are giving them a hand because we want to ensure that the costs to mainstream industry are managed, that the planning takes place and that the environmental and services industries can get on with the job. We must do so for our economy and for our environment. 
 I hope that the Minister takes the amendment seriously because it is necessary to clean up the 28 per cent. of rivers that will not meet the standards in the directive.

Elliot Morley: The amendment is unnecessary. I repeat my earlier point that the Environment Agency already has the power to do all that the hon. Lady asks for. As for leaving environmental regulations to the last minute, I remind the Committee that the water framework directive does not come into force until 2015. We must transpose the directive by the end of the year and we are currently into our third public consultation on it. We are giving it an enormous amount of time and attention. I take the points made by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee very seriously. It is a very important Committee and its advice is of a very good quality, but it did not say that the implementation of the water framework directive required any mucking about with the Bill.
 Our river water quality has improved dramatically in recent years and I am very pleased to see that. The water framework directive emphasises the biological rather than the chemical quality of water and that makes some important differences to how we measure the standard of our rivers. We have until 2015 to put it fully in place, and we can have a review on discharge consents at any time. Because of the time scales, we feel that we do not have to disturb the four-year non-intervention period, bearing in mind that, if it should become necessary, the powers exist to do that to meet the requirements of the directive. 
 I ask the hon. Lady to free herself from the obsession that we cannot have the water framework directive without the Bill. The Bill has a set of clear objectives and criteria, some of which will help us to meet the water framework directive. The others will be implemented in the proper time scale laid out in relation to implementing the directive. I have no quibble with the hon. Lady over her commitment to seeing the water framework directive implemented properly and effectively, because that idea is shared by the Government. However, that does not have to be done in the Bill. Indeed, the measures that she is asking for exist in the current powers of the agency and are therefore unnecessary. I therefore urge her not to move her amendment.

Bill Wiggin: In my brief opening comments I said that we should leave out the words, ''or 6 above''. It was unclear, from examining the Bill, what the effect would have been on the Water Resources Act 1991, so
 I am grateful for the Minister's reply, although I am not sure whether he has touched on exactly what I wanted. However, the purpose of the amendment was to draw attention to the slightly confusing drafting and I feel that I have succeeded. Therefore, I have no hesitation in withdrawing my amendment, but I will have to leave discussion of new clause 24 to the hon. Member for Guildford.

Sue Doughty: I have listened carefully to the Minister's views, and there is nothing wrong with saying that there are cases in which the water framework directive should align with the Bill, but I appreciate that the Government are not keen on it. Indeed the response given to Lord Haskel was not the same as the response given today. It is clear that the Minister has examined it more closely since the Lords scrutiny of the Bill, and further information has come to light and been provided.
 I am pleased that the Environment Agency has been given the necessary powers and hope that it will have the funding to get on with the job. We pile a lot on to the Environment Agency, which does a good job, and work will have to take place. Having listened to the Minister's views, we will not press for a vote but will by leave seek to withdraw the amendment.

Edward O'Hara: We will come to that later in the order of business.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Edward O'Hara: In light of our progress, we need a suspension for a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee to reconsider the further timetabling of business.
 Committee suspended. 
 On resuming—

Elliot Morley: I beg to move,
That the Order of the Committee of 16th September be amended, in the Table, by substituting for the entries in respect of the sittings on 21st October the following— 
 21st October (8.55 a.m.) 
 Clause 59, Schedules 4 and 8; Clause 60; Clauses 62 to 87, Schedules 5 and 6; Clauses 88 to 102, Schedules 7 and 9; Clauses 103 to 106; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules (except new Clauses and new Schedules relating to fluoridation). 
 — 
 21st October (2.30 p.m.) 
 Clause 59, Schedules 4 and 8; Clause 60; Clauses 62 to 87, Schedules 5 and 6; Clauses 88 to 102, Schedules 7 and 9, Clauses 103 to 106; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules (except new Clauses and new Schedules relating to fluoridation). 
 5.00 p.m.
 Question put and agreed to.

Clause 90 - Trade effluent consents

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Bill Wiggin: I just wanted to ask what ''trade effluent'' was. I would be grateful if the Minister gave an example.

Elliot Morley: Trade effluent and trade premises are expressions used in relation to the trade effluent consenting regime. Trade effluent is simply discharge from manufacturing premises that has been licensed by the Environment Agency. It is as simple as that.

Bill Wiggin: My understanding is that the clause allows trade effluent to enter the sewers, but I may have got that wrong. I would be grateful for clarification.

Elliot Morley: Whatever happens to trade effluent, it must be licensed. Anything that passes from a trade or industry into the sewers is classed as trade effluent and must be licensed. Whether an effluent can enter the sewers very much depends on what the substances are. The powers will enable the Secretary of State to narrow or widen those two expressions and to make it clear, where the discharge is from particular processes, substances or types of activity to the public sewer, that it is subject to the trade effluent discharge consenting regime. The clause makes it clear that there are strict controls on what can go into public sewers and gives the Secretary of State the power—if she chooses—to restrict the definition of what that is. The clause is intended to result in better regulation of the trade effluent discharge process.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 91 - Trade effluent consents:

Amendment proposed: No. 262, in 
clause 91, page 106, line 20, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— 
 '(b) in subsection (6), at the end there is inserted ''and ''controlled waters'' has the meaning given by section 104 of the Water Resources Act 1991''.'.—[Mr. Morley.]

Bill Wiggin: This part of the Bill refers to the Water Resources Act 1991. I have looked in that Act for the definition of ''controlled waters'', and the part to which I shall refer does not contain such a definition—that is quite confusing. I should be grateful if the Minister would point me in the right direction. There are definitions of fresh-water limit, miles, lakes or ponds, relevant lakes or ponds and just about every other definition that you could care for, except for ''controlled waters''. Could he give us a definition and an example?

Elliot Morley: Yes, I can. The clause has more to do with tidying up section 121 of the Water Industry Act 1991, which deals with conditions of trade effluent consents. Section 121(6) contains the meanings of ''harbour'' and ''tidal water'', as set out in the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. We also propose to
 include a provision in the subsection referring to the meaning of ''controlled waters'' given by section 104 of the Water Resources Act 1991. That will consolidate all the meanings in one subsection—it is as simple as that. It does not change or do anything; it just makes things much tidier. Section 104(1), as mentioned by the hon. Member for Leominster, deals with controlled waters. It is a tidying-up amendment.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister did a valiant job there, and I could see messages passing backwards and forwards. I was pressing him for an example and I have not had one yet, but I hope that some scribbling is taking place and perhaps something will be produced. As I understand it, this has to do with the various parts of the sea. I think that is what the Minister means; I should be grateful for his confirmation of that. I do not seek to delay him or to confuse the Committee, but it is not clear—from what I have seen—what he meant.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right that the definitions are in the Merchant Shipping Act 1894—I am sure that I can get those definitions for him. I understand that the definition of ''controlled waters'' is in section 104 of the Water Resources Act 1991. That is: all surface waters and coastal waters. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's points.

Bill Wiggin: I do not wish to pursue the matter further. I have asked the right question; I am not sure that I have had the right answer. However, we are getting somewhere. It sounds like a catch-all definition of controlled waters, and I am not sure that that is what the Government intended, but unless I am intervened on, I shall stop now. It would have been helpful to have a better definition. I accept that section 104 is unclear and needs to be tidied up. I suspect that the Government mean well in connection with the clause.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 91, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 92 to 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 96 - Provision of public sewers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—Appeals: disputes over duty to provide sewers—
'(1) Section 101A of the WIA (further duty to provide sewers) is amended as follows. 
 (2) In subsections (7) to (10), wherever the words ''Environment Agency'' appear, there is substituted ''Secretary of State''.'.

Bill Wiggin: New clause 19 would change ''Environment Agency'' to ''Secretary of State'', in respect of the further duty to provide sewers. Sewers are one of the most contentious subjects when things go wrong, as anyone who has had constituency or personal experience of such problems is well aware. It
 is a most aggrieving, unpleasant and awkward situation. We propose that the powers be given back to the Secretary of State where they belong, rather than being with the Environment Agency. I hope that the Minister will agree with the proposal and although we cannot vote on it now, I shall be grateful for his constructive comments on the measure.

Elliot Morley: I understand the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument on this important issue.
 In section 101A of the Water Industry Act 1991, sewerage undertakers have a duty to provide first-time mains drainage in an area where non-mains sewerage arrangements, such as cesspits and septic tanks, are causing an environmental or amenity problem. They must provide a public sewer if certain eligibility conditions, similar to those in statute and in guidance, are met. The hon. Gentleman's amendment would not change that, apart from the power being with the Secretary of State rather than the Environment Agency. It does not alter the fact that it is not an obligation; criteria still have to be met. 
 If the sewerage undertaker disputes whether the conditions have been met and refuses to provide a public sewer, the applicants can appeal to the Environment Agency and that is what the hon. Gentleman's proposal would change. There is an argument about whether the Environment Agency is the most appropriate body to consider any section 101A disputes or whether the Secretary of State should do so. 
 In a dispute of that kind, the Environment Agency has the expertise to deal with such matters as it has knowledge of the areas where the proposed sewers are requested. I am not sure that it is practical for the Secretary of State to consider such appeals, because there is all sorts of legislation that states that the Secretary of State should consider appeals on lots of different things. That power is with the Secretary of State, who, in practice, generally refers the appeal to a specialist body and in this case, the Environment Agency is the most appropriate. 
 There are guidelines that fix the conditions for appeal, so there is no additional policy element that requires the Secretary of State's overview. I appreciate that considering disputes can sometimes take time, especially when the decision is then challenged by sewerage undertakers through a judicial review, which they have the right to do. Given that it is a job for an external, specialist agency, I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that it should be the Environment Agency.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I agree that the Environment Agency would be the agency or specialist to which the Secretary of State would delegate the power to take the decision. That is how things should proceed and we debated it in earlier parts of the Bill. The new clause aims to provide a short cut so that the Environment Agency automatically acts on behalf of the Secretary of State. Instead of its being an automatic action on behalf of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State is not mentioned at all in the clause as it stands.
 A person who finds that his house is polluting and causing damage to the environment and is told that it 
 must be connected to the sewer may not wish that to happen. He will appeal to the Environment Agency, whose mandate is to put the environment above all else and so he will lose. He will receive a large bill and will complain to his MP and ask him to appeal to the Secretary of State. Normally that is what would happen. The Government are being a little sharp in seeking to cut these corners. That is what my amendment seeks to rectify. 
 The reality is exactly as the Minister describes. The Environment Agency will recommend to the Secretary of State that the sewer be connected. The net result will be the same. It is the process that is important. The Minister will recognise from his many years of experience that people expect the process to take all the customary steps. While I recognise what is going on in the Bill, my new clause seeks to do the opposite of streamlining the process. People who are in this position, either as a polluter or as someone who wishes to be connected to a sewer because of environmental damage that might be taking place against his wishes, should be able to appeal to the Secretary of State. That is all that the new clause seeks to ensure.

David Drew: I shall be brief. I seek clarification. I do not want to pre-empt the debate on the new clauses. Some of us think that sewerage, notwithstanding my hon. Friend's commitment to bring forward changes in this area, is an important aspect of the Bill. This is a good time to deal with some of the issues. I hear what the hon. Member for Leominster says and I am sure that the Minister will respond about the appropriate way to look at not just who is involved in discussions but the degree of accountability.
 My hon. Friend knows that I am a great proponent of alternative solutions to the normal approach of putting in a sewer, come what may. I would be keen to know what the process could and should be under the Bill if there is no agreement on the best way to dispose of the waste products. Clearly there is a presumption that putting in a sewer is the ideal solution. Increasingly people, including water companies, are concluding that that is not necessarily the best method. There are soft technology solutions, including reed beds, that should be considered. I should like an assurance that, if the office of the Secretary of State is not involved, the Environment Agency will be open minded to these other solutions and will talk to the water companies, the builders, the developers and the householders about what could be a better and, dare I say it, more affordable series of solutions.

Robert Key: I am concerned that the Bill will miss a golden opportunity in respect of the connection of sewers to new properties. The Minister's comments confused me about what is happening. Let me take a practical example. There are many villages in my constituency where one new house can have a dramatic impact on sewerage. The sewers were designed 100 years ago and are carrying more and more sewage. The planning authority cannot say no to a development on grounds of lack of sewerage and the water company, as the sewerage company, is not a
 statutory consultee who can also say no to the new development.
 One example of what happens is in Hanging Langford in Wiltshire, where every winter the springs rise and the sewers are flooded. As more houses get built, the water company has no option but to relieve the pressure on the local village sewage works by letting it flow into the river, which is a candidate special area of conservation river. The Environment Agency wrings its hands and says that damage could be done, but as there is no other option, it issues an exceptional licence for discharge. That happens year after year, even though the water company does not want to do it. The company has applied to Ofwat for a capital programme to upgrade the sewers but has been told that it cannot because Ofwat thinks that the consumers will have to pay too much for it. 
 Every year the environment is damaged in a river that is important to not just the UK, but Europe. We go round in circles, and I would put money on the fact that we will see sewerage problems in that village and many others again this winter. If the Secretary of State is saying that he is happy for the Environment Agency to be the judge, nothing will change. The pollution of the river will continue, as Ofwat will not allow the water company to do the work to the sewerage that allows it to cope with the problem. More houses will continue to be built, and the problem will get worse. Unless I have missed something, we are missing an opportunity.

Elliot Morley: The latter point raised by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), for which I have some sympathy, is not covered in this clause. Clause 96 is about simply replacing cesspits with sewers, not planning or new developments. I would not claim to be an expert on planning law, but I know that in my authority an application was turned down because the drains were inadequate. I should have thought that the sewerage was a planning issue for his local authority to take into account, although I do not know the ins and outs of the particular issue. However, it is not covered by clause 96.
 Planning guidance urges authorities to work closely and at an early stage with water undertakers so that new water supply and disposal infrastructure is timed to coincide with the development. The logic of that is that if that work is not so timed, planning permission should not be given. The hon. Gentleman might want to pursue that issue with his local planning authority.

Norman Baker: I am conscious of straying from the clause, but the Minister should understand that although such planning may be easier for brand spanking new developments, for which everything can be planned properly, it is far more difficult to deal with matters during incremental growth on the existing system.

Elliot Morley: I understand that. However, if the application is new, the facility of the existing infrastructure is a consideration. There might be a problem where outlying planning permission has existed for a while, as that restricts planning authorities, but we are beginning to stray from the
 clause. Although the point is important, it does not relate to what we are dealing with.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) asked whether other options could be considered rather than expensive mains sewerage. The answer is yes—there is a range of new technologies. There have been interesting developments in relation to sewage treatment, and he mentioned reed bed technology as one. Legislation sets out that the undertaker must take account of all relevant considerations, which is interpreted as including new technologies. That might be a more realistic option than expensive engineering, the cost of which has to be picked up by the local authority or, sometimes, by a household. 
 The hon. Member for Leominster asked whether the Secretary of State or Environment Agency should be the judge. There are various points to make, and I hope to persuade him that his proposal is not the best way forward. An appeals process will be delayed if the case goes first to the Secretary of State. He or she will have to deal with it in relation to the administration within the Department and then put it out to an external agency, which would do the actual work. If that is the Environment Agency, that would achieve nothing except add another level of bureaucracy. That would delay the process, which would not be in the interests of the people concerned. 
 An appeal to the Secretary of State would suggest further policy consideration; that is the whole point of an appeal. In fact, under what has been suggested, the Secretary of State would set the policy framework and the agency would work within it. That is how things would work, so there would not be much point in going to the Secretary of State. 
 With regard to hearing the appeal, the Environment Agency would work in accordance with the guidelines set by the Secretary of State. That is the current situation. The Secretary of State has an involvement in setting the guidelines that the agency must follow in the appeals process. That means that if people have issues about the process, they can raise them through Parliament. If there is a case for change, the Secretary of State can alter the guidelines and the framework set for the agency. The hon. Member for Leominster wants some accountability with regard to the Secretary of State; it exists, and it can be called upon. I understand the case that he has made, but his suggestion would add an unnecessary level of bureaucracy and would slow down this entire process.

Bill Wiggin: I take on board the point about the extra layer of bureaucracy but, in reality, the letter that the Secretary of State receives would simply be passed on to the Environment Agency, which is not an insurmountable layer. If people disagreed with the Environment Agency's decision, they would appeal to the Secretary of State in any case. We are missing a trick by not allowing that to be clearly stated in the Bill. My main fear is that we are empowering an unelected agency.

Elliot Morley: The appeal would not go to the Secretary of State, even under the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. If people were unhappy with the
 Environment Agency review, the next step would be a judicial review.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for that comment, but it flies in the face of the argument about adding another layer of bureaucracy.
 I am deeply unhappy that the Environment Agency is being empowered in this way. I suspect that this will have to be addressed again at a later stage. The Minister should take on board our fears about empowering agencies. However, at this stage, I am grateful for what he has said, although it does not give me as much comfort as I would have liked. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 98 - Adoption of lateral drains

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19.New clause 19 Power to require adoption of private sewers

New clause 19 - Power to require adoption of private sewers

'After section 102 of the WIA there is inserted— 
 ''102A Power to require adoption of private sewers 
 (1) The Secretary of State may be regulations establish a scheme to enable a sewerage undertaker to be required to adopt a sewer to which this section applies. 
 (2) A scheme under this section may apply to any sewer which is— 
 (a) situated within the area of a sewerage undertaker or which serves the whole or any part of that area; and 
 (b) not vested in a sewerage undertaker. 
 (3) Regulations under subsection (1) may amend section 105 so as to extend the appeals procedure to the scheme, provided that the appeal shall be heard by a person other than the person imposing the requirement to adopt.''.'

Paddy Tipping: I am pleased to discuss new clause 19 and to have the support of some long-standing campaigners on the issue that it addresses; my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud, for Falmouth and Camborne and for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) who has the important and unique distinction of being the chairman of the all-party sewers and sewerage group. While I am giving out accolades, I should also mention Stephen Battersby, who runs an organisation called the Campaign for the Renewal of Older Sewage Systems. He has been a strong advocate of the need to make progress on the issue of private sewers.
 Sometimes amendments are described as probing. Let me be clear; this is a prodding amendment. I want to prod the Minister, who needs no prodding on the issue. Since he took on his extended post, he has shown a great deal of interest, commitment and action on the issue. The problem is a long-standing one, which has been around since the privatisation of the water industry back in 1991. I looked at the Water Industry Act 1991; the Committee sittings took place 
 in this Room 12 years ago, and I suspect that similar discussions to those we are about to have took place at that time. 
 The position is perfectly simple. Throughout the country there are a large number of properties with sewers that are not adopted. In the ambit of Newark and Sherwood district council—an area that part of my constituency covers—there are more than 1,400 properties that are not connected to adopted sewers. I should put on record my thanks to Newark and Sherwood district council, and particularly to Jeremy Hutchinson, one of its environmental health officers.

Bill Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his point about the number of houses that he said were not connected to an adopted sewer? Are they connected to a sewer that has not been adopted, or are they not connected to any sewer at all?

Paddy Tipping: They are connected to sewers, but those sewers are not adopted by the sewage undertaker. That is not just a problem in the Sherwood area.

Andy King: They are eventually connected to a public sewer, which is adopted.

Paddy Tipping: We are talking about the bit in the middle, a subject that has been considered by consultants W.S. Atkins who were commissioned by the Minister and reported in June. The report is important and interesting. It shows that there are between 80,000 and 200,000 km of unadopted sewers. There is a big variation between those figures, which reflects the difficulties of the matter. Atkins also looked at the call-outs that took place; the number of calls that local authorities received from householders with blocked sewers that were found to be private sewers. It reported that there were 108,000 such reports in any one year.
 The research went further and suggested that the number of calls, if the sewage undertakers are taken into account, was 282,000. It is a big, long-standing problem and we need to do something about it. The Atkins report provides a basis on which to do solve it. In fairness to the Minister, he put the report out for consultation in June with a closing date of 26 September. We are beyond that closing date, and perhaps the Minister will tell us the number of organisations that have replied. 
 I gently chide my hon. Friend the Minister; I was in front of him on the matter and tabled a parliamentary question that was answered on 16 October. I simply asked whether he would list the number of people who had replied to the consultation, and give us a feel of their responses. I am grateful for his reply, in which he said that the consultation period of the paper, which was published on 1 July, extended until 26 September. He said that the responses from organisations or individuals that were not marked confidential would be placed in the Library and a summary of responses would be published when ready. That adds an awful lot to the debate, but we might go a little further. 
 I suspect that, during the consultation, people have responded in favour of the Atkins option, which, in a sense, passes the ownership of the sewers to the sewage undertakers. That is the clean and clear way of dealing with the problem. That discussion took place back in 1991, but the then Government neglected to take the issue forward. There are costs involved, because if that approach, which I favour, is adopted, sewage bills will go up across the country. Everyone who pays a water bill will take on, over a period of time, collective responsibility for the cost of adopting the sewers. 
 All that I would say at this stage is that this is a big problem, and not one that an individual householder can sort out. The sensible way forward is to bring sewers up to adoptable standards. Again, sewage undertakers have been more relaxed, careful and thoughtful in their approach to that. But private sewers often affect not only individual householders but a group, in which case there is a collective cost across that group. It takes only one householder to decide not to continue with the scheme designed by the local authority or sewage undertaker to put the kybosh on it. That problem has existed for a long time. 
 We are on the road to progress, and many of us would like to make progress more quickly. I am sure that the Minister and his officials have looked carefully at the new clause. At the end of the day, it provides a permissive power—a hook in the Bill—so that when the consultation has finally finished, the Minister has the opportunity to introduce by regulation any scheme that he thinks fit. No option is closed off and no specific option is included, but the means is provided to sort out a long-standing problem. If we can achieve that, there will be cheers across the country. This is a tough issue, which causes much concern to many thousands of households.

Robert Key: I commend the hon. Member for Sherwood for introducing the new clause. Logic says that the Government should reject it; pragmatism says that they should accept it. The hon. Gentleman did not mention the practical impact on thousands of families up and down the country who buy a house on a private development, ignorant of the fact that the sewer is unadopted, and then face sewage flooding winter after winter. They are then told that all that they have to do is to make their sewer, which links into the main sewer, up to standard; but they cannot afford it, and the problem continues.
 I have experienced that all over my constituency, as have other hon. Members. I am thinking of the villages of Winterslow, Alderbury and most recently, Beech grange in Landford. Once again, Ofwat is involved. Southern Water has said that there is a double or triple sewerage problem on that estate because it was built on wet ground where there are land drains and another water main and a main adopted sewer crossing it. All the intermediate parts of private sewer linking together cause the problem because when there is a flood in winter, the sewerage cannot accept the ground water, which causes flooding. 
 Southern Water has sealed 12 manholes on the estate so far to try to solve the problem but that has just meant that the poor people at the lower end of the estate have twice as much sewage in their garden every 
 winter. However, the company says that it has asked Ofwat for increases to its budget to allow it to undertake work. Ofwat has said no, as that would be too expensive for the consumer. I am sorry, but the consumer will have to pay more one way or another. The individual families—often elderly couples with very low disposable incomes who are hit, in particular, by the council tax—simply cannot afford it. 
 What are we going to do about that? Will we say, ''No, logic must prevail; it must be down to the individual householder''? How do we get the owners of 60 or 70 houses in the middle of the countryside—some of them are retired, or live exclusively on benefits—to raise hundreds of thousands of pounds to put the sewers right? 
 It is in the public interest that there should be a responsibility on the sewerage authorities to spread the cost across their customers in the way described by the hon. Member for Sherwood. I simply see no alternative way out of the problem. I hope that the Minister will not just say no. We all have to grasp this issue; we all have similar problems in our constituency, and here is an opportunity to do something about it.

David Drew: I do not want to add much to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood said in his inimitable way. I do not mean to prod the Minister, but we need some action on the back of the Atkins report; we need to clarify where we are going. The sad thing is that the problem will get worse before it gets better, because we know that until we lay down clear guidelines for new developments, some of those developments will involve substandard sewerage that will not be adopted.

Paddy Tipping: I do not want to argue with my hon. Friend, because he has been supportive, but regulations introduced on 1 April mean that, from that date, all houses must have sewerage of an adoptable standard.

David Drew: I was just about to come to that. As is always the case when work is in progress, there is still some confusion locally about those regulations. I was about to say that we have reached a point at which the situation is at least static.
 I shall raise a couple of points that I know my hon. Friend is aware of, but which confuse the situation considerably. In my area, until about five years ago, it was standard practice for the local authority to be the agent of the water company. What makes things worse at the moment is that I know of a number of cases—and I have to declare an interest, as this includes cases on my street—where there is total confusion in the event of a blocked sewer. 
 Householders ring the local authority, because many of them do not yet realise that the agency arrangement is no longer in place. The local authority then says, ''It's not our responsibility; ring Severn Trent.'' When the householders ring Severn Trent, it says, ''That's not an adopted sewer, so it's your problem.'' To be fair, between the authority and the water company, we usually muddle through, and 
 someone comes to deal with the problem. Sometimes there is a bill, and sometimes not. 
 There is total confusion out there about who does what, who pays for it, and what happens if no one picks up on the problem. I am assured by Severn Trent that the matter is purely one of a money, and I am sure that that is common to all the water companies. It has nothing to do with practicability or the company's ability to use the latest technology to improve sewers. Improvements can be made, but they have to be paid for. 
 The second issue that I should like to raise is quite complicated. I will not bore the Committee with the details, but an interesting issue has arisen in Summer street in Stroud about a sewer that has been tapped into by various new developments. Again, there is lack of clarity about the grounds on which that was done, and about who took responsibility—was it the planning authority, the water company, or those acting on behalf of the people in the newer property? That needs to be sorted out. I hope that the Atkins report, which I have looked at, considers the argument about who takes responsibility and therefore deals with the problem. 
 Finally, I come to the worst case of all. I agree with the hon. Member for Salisbury that we are talking about large sums of money. Like many Members, I have areas in my constituency where there is no clarity over ownership, particularly where sewers pass under common land, and it is a nightmare when there is a serious leak. Who is going to pay for it? I am not saying that we can resolve that through legislation; I am sure that many cases will end up not in the courts, but in an argument about who will pay the bill. 
 If the Atkins report is followed up and we consider secondary, if not primary, legislation, to clarify exactly how sewers are adopted and who will pay, that will only help those poor people at their wits' end who visit me and other hon. Members. It is not just a question of what people must pay, but of how they get to the stage of finding people to do the work. At the moment, everybody looks the other way, particularly in rural areas. The point was made that connection charges for new sewers are already high, so we need to consider the cost implications. Let us put forward a realistic and honest appraisal—we cannot carry on as we are.

Norman Baker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood on tackling this important matter in a new clause. It is a convenient hook on which to hang something, and the fact that it is not prescriptive is also helpful—indeed, it is a bit like my amendment on the water savings trust.
 The Government recognise that this is a serious issue. They are at last consulting—belatedly, but they have finally got round to it six years on, so we give credit where credit is due. We now have regulations to ensure that new sewers are adoptable. That is very important, and I congratulate the Government on achieving that; it could have been achieved a long time ago, but at least we have got there now. As the hon. Member for Stroud said, at least the situation will not get worse, and we can find a way to improve it. We must deal with it and, as the hon. Member for 
 Salisbury suggested, the only way is to have sewerage undertakers adopting private sewers. There is no other way around it. We can huff and puff and look for alternatives, but that is the only answer, and we must spread the bill, which in my cases will be large. 
 I wanted to speak today because of an incident in my constituency—I apologise in advance if I bore hon. Members, but the incident is important. A private sewer in my constituency has developed a blockage. The sewer serves 82 properties in Polgate, and the district council has decided for good environmental health reasons that the blockage must be cleared. It decided to seek agreement from the house owners to fund that, but agreement is not forthcoming, so it will serve a notice under the Building Act 1984 for the work to be done. The 82 properties are not on particularly rich estates, and in many cases the people who live there are struggling to make ends meet. A big bill will suddenly land on their doormats—it may be a four-figure sum—which must be paid to deal with a problem that they did not know was there and did not know was theirs. That is intolerable. 
 It is extraordinary that in this day and age responsibility is still so unclear and ownership unknown. People write to me saying that they had no idea that they became responsible for a private sewer when they bought their property, yet suddenly they have a big bill for rectifying a problem that may recur, unless the sewer meets adoptable standards, which will of course increase the bill. 
 There is a further complication to the case in my constituency: the private sewer is not terribly old—only about 20 or 30 years. The householders strongly believe that the reason that the sewer must be dealt with expensively now is that the material used for the piping 20 or 30 years ago was inadequate. Wealden district council argues that when, in its planning capacity, it gave permission for that material to be used all those years ago, it was acting on best advice and had no reason to think that it was inadequate—but it is. 
 It is rather rough justice for the district council to say, ''We did not know that the material was inadequate, but you can still have a bill anyway''. In the short term, Wealden district council, and other councils in similar situations, ought to pick up the bill—as they can. Under the 1984 Act, councils have permissive powers to pay to deal with such a blockage; they are not required to recharge individual householders. Until we sort things out properly it is far better in the short term to spread the cost around general council tax payers in the whole district, rather than to present 82 households with a huge bill that they probably cannot meet. How will they pay that bill? What will happen if they do not pay?

Bill Wiggin: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that we are talking mainly about privately owned housing and that almost everybody who has bought a house recently has paid a large amount in stamp duty? Should not the person who has taken the money put things right? The money should come from the
 Treasury, rather than from people who had nothing to do with the purchase of the houses.

Norman Baker: I fully recognise the problems of local councils, whatever parties are involved, and the enormous burden of council tax—although that is taking us slightly beyond the scope of the clause. I would prefer it if such things could be funded through general, rather than local taxation. However, under the 1984 Act local authorities have the responsibility to deal with such matters and the power to pay out of their general pot or to recharge. Whatever the ideal situation is, we are dealing with what currently happens.
 In the short term, local authorities must realise that it is neither fair nor practical for huge bills to land on the doormats of people who can ill afford to pay them. In the case that I mentioned, Wealden district council, which deals with Polgate, ought to pick up the bill. 
 That is the short-term scenario for getting us through the next year or two, but as the hon. Members for Sherwood, for Stroud and for Salisbury said, in the longer term this matter must be sorted out. There is cross-party agreement. This is not an easy problem to solve and I understand why the Government have hesitated. Nevertheless, the situation is becoming urgent. I hope that as a consequence of our discussions and the consultation process that the Government have embarked on, private sewers will become a thing of the past. In years to come people will, perhaps, look back on our discussion with incredulity.

Andy King: I welcome the opportunity to debate this important issue. There is unanimity in the Committee about the necessity of taking action.
 I want to be fair to the Minister. The review by W.S. Atkins is a fantastic piece of work. Sadly, however, many Opposition Members have not had sight of it. I assure them that it is a good read; it is enlightening and it will show them that there have been many missed opportunities to put things right. The situation was last reviewed in 1988. We must think about who was in power then. 
 We are trying to put right an anomalous situation. In Victorian times people had the sense, through the Public Health Acts 1848 and 1875, to require sewers to be adopted. Those Acts were unambiguous: they said, ''This is a public health matter. We must get this right.'' 
 Our problems are due to bad legislation being made in 1936 under which the requirement rule was removed. We ended up with a mish-mash; some sewers were adopted, but adoption applications were not made for others. I assure Opposition Members that the problem does not affect just the odd 50 or 60 houses here and there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood said, there is a lack of clarity about the size of the problem—between 80 and 200,000 km of sewers are affected. Either way, more than 8.5 million households are affected. A lot of poor, old and vulnerable people are affected because of that earlier reckless decision. 
 The problem was further exacerbated in 1973 when the water companies came along. Of course, water companies want profit and do not see themselves as charities. Therefore, when problems arose, they asked, ''Where is the formal agreement?'' Local authorities scrambled around, but all that was necessary was a minute in a council meeting. 
 We now have a ridiculous situation in which sewers have to be in an immaculate condition and a perfect location if an agreement to adopt is to be reached, following a row with the regulator. That is just nonsense. 
 I apologise, Mr. O'Hara, for not declaring an interest at the beginning of my remarks. I was one of those people who lived in a house for 20 years without realising that my sewer had not been adopted. The interest has been registered with the House authorities, but I should have made it clear to members of the Committee. 
 It came as a great shock to the 800 or so residents of my own estate to find out that the sewers were not adopted when, after 30 years, serious problems started to develop. We held public meetings. I hired a local school hall and had to have two sittings when some 1,000 residents turned up and could not fit into the room. It was incredible. The fear of an enormous bill landing on their mat caused considerable concern to elderly people.

Brian Iddon: I find this discussion slightly incredible. Has my hon. Friend examined the reason that solicitors do not inform property buyers that they could find themselves in that situation?

Andy King: That is a very good point. The Minister and the authorities have considered it on several occasions. The search asks only whether a property is connected to a public sewer, yes or no, but it should also allow the answer, ''yes, eventually.'' We are trying to remedy that, and we are putting matters right with new standards. We have drawn a line under the situation. Before 1936–37, we were okay, so the problem is just with the years since then.

Simon Thomas: It is worth putting it on the record that solicitors have started doing environmental as well as legal searches in the past two or three years, and those facts and figures are now starting to emerge. People who now buy houses have knowledge of the problem, so the Committee's concern is with the historic problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Andy King: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. Indeed, with buyer's packs, we are beginning to give people much better information so that they can make an informed decision.
 We have a timely opportunity. In the early days, the water companies did not want to know about the problem, but they, too, have moved considerably. Only a year ago, the managing director of Severn Trent made it clear that adoption was the only way forward. Let us get it right and put in the money. Adoption could be phased in but, even if it were done 
 tomorrow, it would mean adding about £3 a year to household bills throughout the country.

Bill Wiggin: I just wanted to clarify that point. The hon. Gentleman mentioned an addition of £3 to household bills across the country, but that is not quite right. There is a certain geographical distribution of the problem. For example, in my constituency, the majority of houses are in rural areas and have their own septic tanks, so they will not pick up the bill. Will not the cost hit some areas much harder than others?

Andy King: That is a very important point. In my area, we are starting to put matters right. Flecknoe was the last village in my area in which the septic tank was causing problems and giving rise to worries about the environment through seepage and all the rest of it.
 We have put in new sewers to villages, and I am delighted by the progress that has been made. We must treat the problem as a public health matter and share the burden properly across the whole country. The cost will work out at about £3 per household among those who pay water rates for being attached to a public sewer. Those who are not attached to a public sewer will not receive that part of the bill until their properties are connected. 
 My final point is that people in my estate are incensed because they pay exactly the same amount as the people across the road in a different estate whose sewers are adopted, and they say that they want a 30-year rebate. 
 We have an opportunity to put right a grave injustice. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, who says that this is a prodding amendment. We want the Minister to take it on board.

Elliot Morley: I have listened carefully to the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood, for Stroud and for Rugby and Kenilworth and by the hon. Members for Salisbury and for Lewes. I have attended the all-party group on sewers on several occasions to discuss the particular problems in some detail. I understand that this is a major problem throughout the country. There will not be many constituency MPs who have not had the matter raised with them—people have certainly raised it in my constituency.
 We are trying to address the situation. We commissioned a study by W.S. Atkins to ascertain the scale of the problem and to give us some options for tackling it. The results of that consultation are being analysed and will probably not be known until the beginning of next year. One problem with the parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood is that the results are still coming in, but I can tell him that so far we have received 150 responses from individuals and organisations. He might also like to know that 86 per cent. of respondents are in favour of a change of ownership for private sewers. Of that 86 per cent., 92 per cent. consider that sewerage undertakers are best placed to take on that responsibility. 
 There are, however, financial implications, which hon. Members have touched on. We must consider what will happen to people's bills, and a lot of work 
 must be done to assess that major consideration. I understand the strength of feeling about this problem, and our work appears to indicate that it is much larger than people thought. The figures suggest that 50 per cent. of all domestic properties are connected to private sewers in one form or another. 
 The bad news is that costs may be very high. The good news is that if the problem affects a lot of people, there is a stronger justification for adopting a solution involving the sewage companies and, therefore, spreading the cost. We must consider those matters when we have had a chance fully to evaluate the representations received as part of the public consultation on the W.S. Atkins report. 
 I appreciate that this is a prodding amendment. It would add to the Bill permissive powers to take the 
 matter forward through the adoption of private sewers when all the analysis and work has been completed at the end of the consultation. However, it might take some time to phase in the adoption of private sewers because of the cost implications. I do not know about that, but we must do the work and be open and transparent. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood has made a powerful case on permissive powers. I understand the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth—the issue is important in his area—and other members of the Committee. 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.